On 3 Nov 2016 at 10:40pm Newms wrote:
After the High Court Ruling the fight for the Country is back on. Obliged to come to Parliament before pressing the self-destruct article 50 button it will be impossible for the May clown show, to hide .
They will have to start telling Parliament and therefore us, what they really intend and then we can start counting the cost. It is potentially devastating .
Maria Caulfield has said she wants access to the single market . Everyone but North Korea has access so that means the worst possible hard Brexit . Frankly I doubt she even knows what she is saying .She claimed on Rocket FM she was not an ultra and immigration was not a red line and yet , she never says anything that isn`t implicitly serving us an economic car crash on a platter of bigotry
I do get the feeling, however, that she has noticed that with a majority of 1000 she would have been better off not alienating more than half of her constituents .She says she wants to represent our views on the Brexit committee, well lets demand she does just that
Who is interested in organising and taking action , a campaign of letters a petition a visible gesture she could not ignore . Our MP must be held to account !
I know a lot of you just want to get on with Bonfre and forget it but this window will close so quickly and then the country is lost forever .
Can`t we do something about it ?
On 3 Nov 2016 at 10:56pm Ref Take 2 wrote:
Well looks like now is as good a time as any to call for an election. The latest poll suggests there has been a swing away from Brexit anyway with 51% now deciding they would quite like to stay in the EU after all. The great British Public might finally be waking up to the fact that they were lied to for a vote, no £350 for NHS, no control of immigration on top of scary devaluation of sterling and sheer fear at the complete ineptitude of the monkeys currently governing this country. Time for the Lib Dems to get their arse in gear, put up a mandate for another EU referendum based on the truth this time. Of course by then we may also start to see the reality of what a leave vote will do this country.
On 4 Nov 2016 at 5:15am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Maria Caulfield is caught between a rock and a hard place imo.
As Lewes voted to remain, she could reduce her majority if she votes to leave. But if she voted remain, she'd lose the votes of the pro-Brexit people and reduce her majority that way.
If a GE is called, there'll be a big queue of Liberal hopefuls eyeing up the Lewes seat.
Of course, the Labour right would love a GE right now. They'd undoubtedly lose, and Jezza would almost certainly resign, thus doing what they spectacularly failed to achieve.
On 4 Nov 2016 at 6:42am Newms wrote:
There is a broad body of middling opinion who loathe Brexit but to actually vote for Corbyn is too much. It is the Labhour Party that has sold the country out and I promise you they do not want an election now , they could be down to about 100 seats .
Until a new opposition start competing for the middle we shall have nothing but lunacy
On 4 Nov 2016 at 7:12am Sideshow Bob wrote:
Brexit ain't gonna happen, establishment will now allow it.
On 4 Nov 2016 at 7:28am The people wrote:
It is and will as the people have spoken. The wording of the vote stated that the government would fulfill the people's choice. The establishment must be stopped from controlling this country for their own ends. Democracy must be seen to work otherwise this country heads for anarchy.
On 4 Nov 2016 at 7:36am hacked off wrote:
It makes a complete mockery of the election which was won by a majority wether you like it or not. Perhaps in future elections we should follow the lead of some remainers and throw our toys out of the pram when things don't go our way?
On 4 Nov 2016 at 7:57am Amon wildes wrote:
Well hacked off, I can imagine the wailing, wining and peevish comments that would be flying about, and plastered all over the Daily Mail, if the Brexitwers hadn't won. It's also worth remembering that only 30% of the country's voters actually voted to Leave. 30 odd % didn't bother to vote. I think remainders have a valid reason to try and ameliorate this tragic decision. So you wanted to get our Sovereignty back and now you don't like the idea of Parliament having a say about Brexit? Please .....
On 4 Nov 2016 at 8:01am The people wrote:
Amon, parliament have no right to change the will of the people, that's not how democracy works. Time for all to accept this or it will be anarchy.
On 4 Nov 2016 at 9:12am hacked off wrote:
.......and wailing,wining and peevish comments is exactly what the remainers are doing now. If you care to check your figures it was a 72.1% turnout. People had a choice to vote they weren't forced to. Ameliorate i.e. making something bad better is your view and not that of the 52% or 17.41 milion people who voted to leave. You may not like the result but its called democracy. Maybe if at the next general election if I don't like the results I should legally challenge them? In that case why bother to have an election in the first place if the results can be changed to suit?
I voted Brexit, if Remain had won ok I wouldn't be happy but would accept the result of the Election - as that would have been what the majority have voted, and get on with life. Is it really that hard for you to do the same?
On 4 Nov 2016 at 9:19am Horace wrote:
According to research by the UEA on a constituency basis the result would of been Leave 408 and remain 242.
It was a clear mandate for leave and and remainers should grow up and not stoke up a dangerous, damaging constitutional crisis because it didn't go their way.
On 4 Nov 2016 at 9:28am Ref Take 2 wrote:
Yes Hacked off it is hard for me "to do the same" as you put it and that's because we were all lied to big time about what Brexit actually meant and this can't be ignored. In a general election politicians also have been known to lie but in a referendum of this magnitude there has to be a recourse and accountability from the imbeciles who have taken us down this path. Run it again but let's all try and pay better attention to the detail next time, then if the majority still want to leave the U.K. so be it.
On 4 Nov 2016 at 9:32am Ref Take 2 wrote:
Ps. Obviously should have read leave EU rather than UK but then again that could be a Freudian slip on my part.
On 4 Nov 2016 at 10:03am Newms wrote:
The thing is that the referendum was about whether we should leave the EU . It was an appalling process in which the consequences of this were lied about consistently but we are stuck with it.
We will leave the EU; but there is no justification for excluding Parliament entirely from any role in the decisions to be made about how and on what terms . The 100% must be properly represented it is on this basis our generally peaceful land stays that way and this is all our futures.
This is not some plebiscitary dictatorship in which the law and the constitution are ignored when it is inconvenient for some cabal who happen to have grabbed power what are you thinking of ?
The will of the peoples…yeeesh where are we , the Soviet Union , North Korea , I think not
On 4 Nov 2016 at 10:54am ar10642 wrote:
I'm not sure why all the Brexiters are throwing their toys out of the pram. You wanted parliament to have 100% sovereignty. You've got it. You wanted our courts to be independent of outside influence, that's what we saw yesterday. It's only right that such a sweeping change to citizens' rights and future should require an Act of Parliament and the government's position should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, especially as the "will of the people" was reduced to a farcical yes/no decision with literally nothing about what the UK will look like when we leave. If it's such a good idea, what are you all afraid of? It's highly unlikely the MPs will vote against as it will be political suicide for them, especially Labour MPs with seats in the heartlands where the majority voted leave.
To argue that the royal prerogative is somehow the more democratic option is ridiculous and makes it look like the Brexit crowd only want democracy when it suits their own ambitions.
To use one of their own phrases "you lost, get over it".
On 4 Nov 2016 at 11:14am Sideshow Bob wrote:
Cameron and Johnson thought they were so bloomin clever, take opposing stances, it backfired titanically, it ain't gonna happen people. Divide and rule being played out in plain sight.
On 4 Nov 2016 at 11:52am the people wrote:
The people have spoken in the vote so out is out and there is no going back.
On 4 Nov 2016 at 12:09pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
"The wording of the vote stated that the government would fulfill the people's choice."
You must have had a different ballot paper from me. I'm pretty sure mine just said something like "Should Britain remain in the EU".
On 4 Nov 2016 at 12:19pm It's Not Rocket Science wrote:
I was in favour of remaining. I accept the vote went the other way, but it doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.
In the same way I didn't vote Tory in the last election, but they won. I accept that as being the democratic result, but
I don't see any reason why I should be happy about that either, and it's a bit naive to suggest that anyone should.
Trouble is, if we make the wrong decisions over Brexit, like you say 'The People', there is no going back. There isn't
another election in 5 years to choose something different!
On 4 Nov 2016 at 12:22pm Annette Curtin Twitcher wrote:
The court action wasn't just a remain thing, one of the big funders of the case actually voted leave. This case isn't about Brexit per se, it's about parliamentary sovereignty.
Only parliament can repeal an act of parliament. The EU Act 1972 is such an act. Brexit will require the repeal of the EUA, therefore the matter has to go before parliament. It's a very simple matter of constitutional law and any local government committee clerk, no matter how lowly, would understand this.
What I find more interesting is whether this is cock-up or conspiracy. If the Bullingdon Boys had really meant to honour the referendum result, surely they would have ensured that the referendum act contained a provision that in the event of a majority vote to leave, the EUA would be repealed and A50 invoked? If that had been done, parliament would have had its say before the referendum and none of this would be necessary.
Given that parliamentary draftsmen are experts in this sort of thing, I'm inclined to think it's deliberate rather than accidental. And I think that's the question that really needs to be asked: if they wanted the public to decide, why didn't the law reflect that?
This one will ruan and run ...
On 4 Nov 2016 at 12:24pm Wotcha wrote:
I seem to remember that the winning side in the referendum voted for millions of pounds extra to be spent on the NHS.
At least we can be certain that this will happen.
On 4 Nov 2016 at 1:11pm Taff wrote:
@ Ref take 2. 51% is 1% less than the result.
We were lied to but did the government step in to advise otherwise?
On 4 Nov 2016 at 1:14pm bob bob bob wrote:
Yes, Taff, the government and Remain campaign repeatedly pointed out the various lies and misrepresentations made by the Leave campaign. Still waiting on that £350million?
On 4 Nov 2016 at 2:48pm Tom Pain wrote:
I think the Royal Prerogative had a lot to do with getting us into the EU,you know back in the days before bottled water was invented.By the wayNewms,,perhaps you could clarify a point that has been in contention for some time,did you create the world in seven days or was Darwin right?
On 4 Nov 2016 at 3:09pm Amon wildes wrote:
I'll carry on moaning, as you 'Leavers' would had you lost. It's my democratic right and I shall exercise it. Get used to it. There are lots of us out there, in fact only a few percent less than you, and that's just those that bothered to vote. I can only guess at how vile the Daily Mail would have been if 'Leave' had lost. They are incandescent about yesterday's High Court ruling and their shaming of the three judges is disgusting, particularly that one of them is gay! It is hard to know how much more revolting the Daily Mail can become.
On 4 Nov 2016 at 4:11pm Taff wrote:
bobbobbob, not sure government did anything did they? no out strategy, dithering now, convoluting to try and cover up their own misgivings. I don't go with the 350M to be honest as that will mostly go in expenses for the politicians. Oneard and downward at the mo, for us populous mushrooms anyway.
On 4 Nov 2016 at 10:01pm Fairmeadow wrote:
The arrogant remainder assumption that the referendum lies were all on one side is getting irritating. The £350M issue was very widely taken apart in the media, and no one believed it. But quite a few people I know who wanted to leave were intimidated by the disaster stories from Osborne, Carmey, the IMF and assorted fat cats who were doing very well from driving wages down through immigration, and avoiding paying for training by hiring from abroad.
Prime examples include the NHS, which has only been training half the doctors they need, turning away many thousand qualified UK medical school applicants every year. One positive result from Brexit already - the NHS has decided to offer another 1,500 medical school places each year. Other employers will have to follow suit and offer training to our own young people if they want to stay in business. Very good news for our young people, but never mentioned by the BBC.
Why did Nissan decide to stay in the UK, apart from the obvious reason that they already gave huge investments here? Anything to do with the 15% reduction in the value of the £ making cars built in the UK so much more competitive than those built elsewhere in the EU? The currency fluctuations dwarf any credible tariff scenario.
On 4 Nov 2016 at 10:17pm Ref Take 2 wrote:
Ordinary people, and I include myself in that category, should as Attenborough said have never been allowed to vote on such a crucial issue. I'm not equipped to make that choice but what bothers me more is the people who should have been qualified to sort out the aftermath are clearly even more clueless.
On 4 Nov 2016 at 10:26pm A Person wrote:
Precisely, Ref Take 2. Ours is a representative democracy. We elect individuals whose job it is to take difficult decisions after much thought, research and debate, based on rational facts. It is their JOB to do that. Instead they whip up prejudice and curious notions of a bygone age where Britain ruled the waves, and ask us to say yes or no to a ridiculously simplistic question. And so we find ourselves in this stunning mess where every path is strewn with traps.
On 4 Nov 2016 at 10:32pm Newms wrote:
Fairmeadow - you are probably right to some extent about Nissan but we do know that they have written assurances and those assurances are not being made public.
You seem to be suggesting that our future can be based on continued loss of international confidence in the country and increased costs , surely you can see how ridiculous that is?
Car production in this country and investment is tied to access to the EU and if the UK is the worst place in Europe from which to sell to Europe it will not last long – ITS OBVIOUS
As for funding the NHS , the money has to be made before it gets handed out the public sector and the NHS is too big a bill to avoid the pain again .In fact the Conservative Party are quite openly planning a hacking fest look on Conservative home
The Press - you have assumed the Brexit voter typically reads the press- nope , they read the bus and they listened to any number of similiar lies I could quote .
On 5 Nov 2016 at 2:04pm oh really? wrote:
do you always spout pathetic assumptions?
PN is back methinks -such a pity.......